So... Who's investing?

(John Carmack) wrote:

I don't particularly want to have an obligation to any other
shareholders, and I don't really need the money, so I'm not actively
pursuing it. The standard advice to entrpenuers is always "use
someone else's money if possible", but I still think there are
significant benefits to being completely self funded.

Certainly. But it's one thing when the self funders are a bunch a
guys with day jobs, and something completely else when the self funder
is a self made millionaire. Your (and Jeff Bezos's) situation is
unique and hardly applicable as a general rule.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
Your (and Jeff Bezos's) situation is
unique and hardly applicable as a general rule.

D.

Aside from your statement being internally inconsistant as written, it
isn't even true as intended. One out of every 36 working americans is
a millionaire. True, many of them are "paper millionaieres", who
would have difficulty actually throwing $100k at anything, but there
are still a whole lot of honest billionaires.

A similar disconnect usually comes up when talking about space
tourism. Most people can't imagine spending $100k for a short thrill,
and they take their personal feelings as an indicator that nobody
would want to. There is a lot of wealth out there, and when you scale
by disposable income, $100k to some becomes just a little outing.

John Carmack
www.armadilloaerospace.com

Charles Buckley wrote in message ...
John Carmack wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote in message ...

I've recently moved away from California (something I wholeheartedly
recommend), andfind myself wanting to invest in small
aerospace/X-Prize-type firms. Anybody got suggestions or
recommendations? Scaled Composites would seem an obvious one, but I
don;t know if they take small investments...

And on the topic... *who* *else* is gonna step up and put yer money
where your mouth is?


I have invested money in XCOR twice now, and I still think they are
probably the best bet.

Now that the X-Prize is basically over and done with, I would probably
entertain serious investment offers, but it would have to be in the
multiple-million range, or it wouldn't be worth the effort on my part.
I don't particularly want to have an obligation to any other
shareholders, and I don't really need the money, so I'm not actively
pursuing it. The standard advice to entrpenuers is always "use
someone else's money if possible", but I still think there are
significant benefits to being completely self funded.

John Carmack
www.armadilloaerospace.com


Out of curiousity, would you care whether that investment came
from an individual, or from an institution?

I as because it might be possible to gather a group of smaller
investors for the specific purpose of investing in a few specific
companies like yours.

Think of it as a smallcap venture capitalist group aimed directly
at the market segment you are in.

Sure, if a group got over a million dollars together and really wanted
to invest in Armadillo, I would probably offer a small chunk of the
company in non-voting stock. With an outside investor, I would hire
some of the guys full time, but that would be the only real change in
our operations. As long as I continue funding everything, the work is
going to remain volunteer.

Investing in XCOR would still be a much lower hassle proposition, as
they are already set up for it, and they have sold enough stock
already to provide reasonable value baselines.

Left to myself, I probably wouldn't take any outside investors at all,
but my wife would kick me if I turned away a million+ dollar investor
without at least giving it a good hearing. :-)

John Carmack
www.armadilloaerospace.com

(John Carmack) wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote:
Your (and Jeff Bezos's) situation is unique and hardly applicable as
a general rule.

D.

Aside from your statement being internally inconsistant as written, it
isn't even true as intended.

Oh? There's no difference between you and Jeff self funding, and the
guys at Space Transport?

One out of every 36 working americans is
a millionaire. True, many of them are "paper millionaieres", who
would have difficulty actually throwing $100k at anything,

Many of them don't *have* $100k to throw as their 'millions' are, as
you say, paper and not cash. They have difficulty throwing that $100k
because it will cost them greatly in capital gains to shift their
assets to cash. (For example, it's cheaper for my father-in-law (net
paper worth ~1.5 mill) to take out a loan to buy a piece of property
than it is to convert assets to cash, because of the taxes he'll have
to pay on the conversion.)

but there are still a whole lot of honest billionaires.

Certainly. And they got that way because they were by and large
fiscally conservative. There's a few dot-commers who are expections
to the rule, but they are few.

A similar disconnect usually comes up when talking about space
tourism. Most people can't imagine spending $100k for a short thrill,
and they take their personal feelings as an indicator that nobody
would want to. There is a lot of wealth out there, and when you scale
by disposable income, $100k to some becomes just a little outing.

To some, yes. The question is as always, how large that 'some' is.
It takes a great deal of disposable (I.E. after tax) income to reach
the point where spending $100k becomes a simple thing.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...


Joe Strout wrote:


You can invest in SpaceDev.

Already got a request for info in to 'em.

And on the topic... *who* *else* is gonna step up and put yer money
where your mouth is?

I have. Not that it's done astoundingly well for me, so far...

Well, I'm sure that my 30,000 or so shares of the one RLV startup I've
already invested in (now 3,000 or so due to a 10:1 reverse stock split)
will make me a bajillionaire Any Day Now...



Anyone want to know how to use chaos/complexity theory for
stock trading?

There's a very specific dynamic state where volatility and
predictability converge to simultaneous maximums.
It is when all the primary driving variables become
complex at the same time. Using the definition of
complex as given by complexity science. Which is
when a variable is midway between it's system
specific possibility space.

It's a very easy system to use once the concepts
are understood. It's pattern recognition.

When at this state, the edge of chaos, the system
behavior becomes universal. Which means the
hidden inner mechanisms become irrelevant.

It's good for ten percent a week, every week
once you know how to tell a static pre-image
from a chaotic one.

A link to an essay outlining some of the ideas.
http://www.calresco.org/milov/ymtemcss.htm

Next week, if a good pattern develops, I'll post
a prediction or two as a demonstration. Since
complexity science uses a frame of reference
that is the inverse of classical mechanics, the more
that know...the better.


Jonathan

s